SL Xpress

Here's a great feature on partisan fighters in Kherson and the Kherson region talking about what it was like living under Russian occupation, including one person who was imprisoned and only set free in a prisoner swap a few months after being arrested. There's also some terrific coverage on a special forces operation to blow up a Russian command post on the left bank of the Dnipro River. I don't know how many other people saw the coverage from a week ago. It was all over twitter. But this shows the cost they paid (two dead, 3 critically wounded, including one in a coma from shrapnel in his brain) and shows a little about the people who made up the squad. They don't exactly seem like SEAL TEAM personnel. Just ordinary folks who took up arms to defend their country. My butt sphincter puckered up when one of the boats' motor was dead. I'm still not completely clear how they got out of there. I think one of the working boats went back across the river to pick them up? I don't know.

Well, personally I don't think Sampson is anywhere close to hanging it up, yet, even at his age. Fertitta isn't firing Sampson simply to hire Beard, and Beard will be unavailable somewhere else by the time Sampson steps down. Also, like Knight he can simply resign in the middle of the season so his son at least gets a shot at the interim title. All I'm saying is that Sampson is going to do what it takes to get his son the job, the same as Knight. And while Sampson doesn't have the same brand that Bob Knight did, his results are way more spectacular.

There are always unintended consequences that are simply incalculable. There are risks involved in any big event that cannot be accounted for no matter how complex the modeling system used, and no matter the computing power utilized. Thinking something different is dangerous. No one anticipated WWI occurring when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. Nor what it would look like. No one thought allowing Lehman Brothers to fail would bring the world economies to their knees and completely freeze private capital markets. No one thought Aid For Families with Dependent Children would lead to a culture where fatherless homes became the norm. There are butterfly events that can't be measured, and when it's something that's already a known tsunami, the consequences for sure cannot be measured. It doesn't mean actions shouldn't be taken, but pretending like all the consequences for those actions are known and manageable is a level of hubris that can lead to disaster. Maybe that's what needs to happen. Not specifically about China, but about any decision we make that we perceive moves us as individuals or tribes in a forward direction. Being fearful of consequences is no way to go through life. But neither is pretending like we know everything about what the outcomes are going to be. For example, I feel strongly it's important to support Ukraine in their war against Russia to the maximum extent possible, outside of putting NATO boots on the ground (or in the air, for that matter). But pretending like we know everything that a victory over Russia - or even an impending victory - brings to the world is silly. We don't. But the chance we take by allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine feels like an unacceptable risk to me on any number of levels. So I'm strongly in favor that the world takes that risk. But that's different from knowing exactly what the outcome will eventually be.

Tolerable is a matter of opinion/perspective. Calculable is a fiction.

Sampson is going to navigate it so his son takes over for him, the same way Bob Knight did at Texas Tech, and Eddie Sutton did at OSU.

That's a fair characterization. Yes.

I'd be shocked if it was anywhere near that high. I don't know how to find those numbers, though. IMO this has way more to do with white tribalism - of which evangelical Christianity can certainly be a part. When I talk to the strongest Trump supporters I wouldn't say they're anywhere close to 90% Christian - but there's a huge level of sympathy for Putin and Russia.

I will say historically black Christian churches are vehemently anti LGBTQ+. A significant part of the African American community is, regardless of religious affiliation. But I don't see much support for Putin in those circles. Now in Africa, on the other hand, there's the whole legacy of Russia not being an African colonizer, and the history of support from the Soviet Union for independence movements across the continent. Most particularly the African National Congress in South Africa, but for sure not exclusively.

I don't think Christians are as monolithic in their belief structure as some of you seem to characterize them as. There is certainly a populist element that represents a significant portion of political activity by Christians, particularly in the South, and they tend to be the most visible. But most Christians I talk to don't really even think about Putin all that much on a day to day basis. I feel like most of what I see regarding support for Putin is better characterized by tribalism based on race, anti LGBTQ+, and a reaction to the perception traditional patriarchal values are under attack. And yes, some of that ends up being rooted in Christianity, but it's my opinion if a Christian community is inclusive - and many are - it doesn't look like that at all. I feel like Putin and Russian propaganda are at their most effective when they're able to appeal to white people who feel like they're under attack in culture wars of some sort. Not just in the US. In European countries as well.

An updated tank coalition graphic should read 18 Leopard 2A6es from Germany, 3 2A6es from Portugal, and 10 2A5es from Sweden to give a full tank battalion of the most advanced battle tanks available to the Ukrainians. Also, Canada just announced another 4 2A4es, so 8 in total. And Poland just announced 60 more PT-91 Tawdry's. They still need to get there, but the country has to commit to it first. I'm really excited to see what Ukraine can do with this new armor, along with the Bradleys/Marders/CV90s. It will just take time.

I don't agree with this. It's a symbiotic relationship on any number of levels. Not necessarily a healthy one, mind you. But it's without a doubt a two way relationship, not the one way relationship you seem to be suggesting. The amount of pain that would be involved in disentangling from China would be incalculable.

Here's an awesome interview with an American nurse, Rebecca Machurowski, operating on the front lines in Ukraine. It also features Scott Kelly, the former astronaut and brother of Mark Kelly, the current senator from Arizona. He's done some fundraising trying to supply more ambulances to Ukraine, who he says loses 10 a week because they're targeted by the Russian military. There's a part towards the tail end of the interview where the nurse makes an impassioned plea, wanting to be able to do or say something to show the world what the Ukrainians are going through to spark continued interest in providing help. I got a little teary eyed listening to her. Oh, and definitely would.

It's not their armor I'm curious about. First, is Ukraine given enough numbers to make a huge difference? From military analysts I've read, they feel the UAF needs about 200 modern battle tanks to be truly effective. The only way we get to those numbers is if we're adding up Leopard 1s, Tawdry's, etc.. We shouldn't even be listing Abrams. There's no telling when they'll get to Ukraine, nor what role they'll actually play. There's only 14 Challenger II tanks being deployed. Good on the Brits for breaking the seal, but they're going to be used in some kind of specialist deployment. The Leopard 2A6's will be the best tanks Ukraine will field, and almost certainly the best tanks on the battlefield by far for either side. Then it becomes a matter of how do you utilize them effectively knowing you'll see losses of an asset that's proving very difficult to obtain, much less replace. Then you have a number of 2A4's, most recently Canada announced they're sending 4 more. I'm certain those too will be the best tanks on the battlefield other than the 2A6's, while also being slightly more expendable. The key thing is, can they break through the Russian defensive lines? After what happened in Kharkiv, the Russian response seems to be to have several different layers of defense, so that a breakthrough can still be contained if prosecuted successfully by the Ukrainians. But if they break through Russian lines completely, anyone who has any confidence the Russians will be steadfast in their defense is kidding themselves. Certainly their most professional units will be. They have been in the past. They will in the future. But the Russian military in Ukraine now is not the same caliber of troops that entered into Ukraine a year ago. And we saw what happened in Kharkiv after the initial breakthroughs occurred. The Russian defense forces flat out ran. Completely abandoned their equipment to get to safety. The other thing is the use of combined arms, so not just the tanks, but the new Marders, Bradleys, and Swedish CV90s, all of which are far superior to the BMP-2s, which are currently the most advanced infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield. They're getting 50 Marders, 50 CV90s, and 109 Bradleys. If they can get a breakthrough with a team of tanks and IFVs, they can really wreck shop and encircle large groups of Russian soldiers who have low morale, poor training, poor equipment - and most important of all - poor communication. So it's just a matter of can Ukraine punch through Russian defensive lines or not. There's really only one way to find out. It's a ways out. I'm guessing May at the earliest. In the meantime Ukraine needs to keep successfully defending and attriting Russian forces while losing as little territory as possible. But the short answer is T-72s should stand very little chance against Leopard 2A6s in a tank on tank battle. Leopards have better firing range, better armor penetration, better armor, better speed, better maneuverability, better accuracy (most importantly on the move) with better thermals. But it won't be single tank on tank battles. So we'll see.

Kind of. It's also Israelis, possibly the most motivated armed forces in the world, versus Islam Arab poorly trained armies who felt like their victory was ordained by Allah, where faith (and vast numerical superiority) was all that was necessary. From everything I've read, the Israelis were fielding British Centurion tanks, not Pattons, on the Golan Heights. Pattons were extensively utilized, but were featured against the Egyptians rather than the Syrians. Israeli tank crews on average fired two shells for every one fired by Syrian tanks. That wasn't because of the shitty Soviet equipment. Their crews were simply that much better. The Syrian miscues during that attack rival Russia in the Ukraine war for sheer stupidity. Up to and including calling off the attack right at the moment of victory. Syrians had the advantage of night equipment, which the Israelis did not. The Arabs simply didn't know how to use it to their advantage effectively. That said, I have not watched the TV series Tears of the Valley. I'm now interested in doing so. There's a false narrative in this thread I've seen a few times that wants to equate Russian current capacity to wage war with the Soviet ability to do so. Yes, the Soviets had all kinds of issues, starting with a command economy. But they had a much larger population, and a much larger manufacturing base to draw from. They had the entire Warsaw Pact. They had much better mechanisms for transfer of power, and much better checks and balances following the death of Stalin. Not a strength of their political system, obviously, but much better than Russia has had historically, and certainly better than exists right now. The chief advantage Russia had over the Soviets was an integration into Western economies, which they've now thrown away.

Apparently they're Leopard 2A4s. I do not have the expertise to identify various models of Leopards based on looking at pictures. But the comments I'm finding from people who claim to be able to do that are saying that's what they are. I had some limited concerns they were Leopard I's. Which still would have been great, but much better that they're Leopard 2A4s, even if they're not the promised 2A6's coming later.

On a long enough time line every culture gets wiped out. My point remains it's less about the righteous mission to wipe out sociopathic cultures, and more about the mission of surviving by fielding a military force more effective than the sociopaths in the first place. And along the way, your culture is likely to do some sociopathic things as well.

In general, both parties have changed drastically since the end of WWII. Obviously. Talking about what both parties want as if it's been a constant doesn't make sense to me. Interventions in Korea and Vietnam were blatantly anti communist. Again, obviously. Which is what the entire country's rhetoric and foreign policy was based around prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Virtually every single foreign policy interaction was defined as limiting communism. Even normalizing relations with China had a main goal of further isolating the Soviet Union. The one exception in many ways is Israel, but that deserves its own post. Securing oil reserves would be another, but was also inextricably intertwined with limiting communism, especially in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Post 1991, there were major interventions in Somalia, Kuwait/Iraq, the Balkans, prior to 9/11. All of those were sufficiently bipartisan. It's questionable how much the US was trying to expand sphere of influence in launching activities in Somalia. That's the one intervention I actually had personal experience with on site. Although the objectives changed in the change of administration from Bush I to Clinton. Honestly, IMO both Somalia and the Balkans were mostly about the atrocities occurring spurring a sense "we should do something about this!" more so than cynical expansion of sphere of influence, although I wouldn't argue they transformed into that, especially in Somalia, to ill effect, IMO. Following 9/11 it's a huge mistake to conflate Afghanistan and Iraq together. Afghanistan was a justified invasion precipitated by the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. The second Gulf War was a boondoggle on so many levels it's difficult to write them all down. The reason there was bipartisan support is because of the misleading of elected representatives that Hussein was developing WMDs and had to be stopped. I do not see Ukraine all that special in relation to the other interventions. They all had significant justifications - IMO, as justifiable as Ukraine in many ways - other than Iraq II. Now, I'm more emotionally invested in the successful outcome of the Ukrainian war, in ways I wasn't necessarily in other interventions, even in Somalia, where I was present. But when I talk about isolationism, I'm not merely talking about interventions. I'd argue interventions are practically inevitable if you maintain the network of international military bases and the projection of force capabilities the US does. If you keep a potent tool around eventually someone somewhere who gains access to it is going to figure out a reason to use it. I'm talking about the desire to disengage from having forward deployed military assets, and the questioning of the need for so many aircraft carrier battle groups. Even now the battle groups we have are sent out with skeleton crews compared to decades past. They're out there for much longer. Their shore visits are more limited. All in a mission to drive down costs and yet continue to fulfill the mission 100% even when the level of assets deployed has decreased. In many ways, that's evidence of isolationism at work. In any case, isolationism will manifest itself first not in terms of the lack of interventions, but in the lessening of the capacity to conduct interventions in the first place. The post Vietnam era is a good example of this, with the disastrous Delta Force operation regarding Iran as a great example. If not for Reagan's massive defense buildup, the arguments we're having regarding the US place in the world vis a vis military interventions would have a much different tenor. As far as Ukraine, the difference in rhetoric is mostly felt because we have a leader of one of the major political parties with a heavy populist bent. It's my opinion that if Bernie Sanders had instead won the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would have a similar rhetoric in some ways regarding US military capabilities and the need for force projection. The historical "we need to be investing those resources in our own country" message. Which has a universal appeal, but particularly in the US where the population has no real understanding of the benefits the US has accrued by being the world's police force in many ways. It's only seen in terms of sacrifices. I want to reiterate how grateful I am that those messages are not the ones held by the people in power right now, regardless of party. I do believe Russia represents a great evil, above and beyond the usual, and what they're doing in Ukraine should be stopped - should've been stopped in 2014 - or the world will pay a heavy price in all kinds of ways. I'm grateful the US continues to have the capability to have a dramatic impact on such conflicts. I hope that holds true long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil.

All of that is badass. "At a meeting of the National Security Council in Warsaw, President Andrzej Duda said: "The prime minister couldn't be here, he went to Kyiv to bring Leopard tanks which are the first batch delivered to Ukraine." Here's the short article the tweet links to: The video in the link at the end says the first tanks aren't expected until the end of March. Looks like Poland decided to move that time line up a bit!

This is an hour long video talking about the capabilities and limitations of supplying western fighters to Ukraine. I found it incredibly informative. The expert's name in this episode is Dr. Justin Bronk. He works for the Royal United Services Institute. His conclusion is that most western fighters would be wasted in the Ukrainian war because of the multiple layers of Russian air defenses. This forces Ukrainian pilots to engage at low altitudes with quick strikes, which precludes assets such as the UK Typhoon, the French Rafale, the F-15 and others, because they're simply not designed for that sort of fighting. He basically concludes the only fighters which have any chance of substantially contributing to the fight are Sweden's Gripen (his #1 choice by far) the F-18 Hornet, and the F-16. The serious problem with the F-16 in his mind is the problem of operating on runways with debris, and the issues with probably needing to extend airfields, combined with Russia likely being able to see that sort of activity. The bigger issue with the Hornet is the lack of availability. The problem with the Gripen is Sweden would be isolated because it's not part of NATO yet, and it requires the Meteor missile would require the cooperation of UK and France, since it's a joint development. But according to Bronk a squadron of 20 jets would make a substantial difference on the battlefield by forcing Russia to move air assets farther from the battlefield and to engage less effectively and less often. This is a relatively short synopsis and does nothing to convey the intelligence and insight Bronk brings to the fore. For anyone interested in seeing Ukraine receive fighter jets, I consider it an important viewing. That said, I still think the F-16s are a better bet politically, even with the difficulties he points out. He does admit the F-16 is the best choice for a post cease fire Ukraine. There's a long discussion on why the Typhoon is a terrible choice, but the discussion moves to what might be a better choice - at least somewhat - by the 19m mark.

Here's a great article from Roland Oliphant of the UK's Telegraph, who revisits some of the people he met earlier in the war to see how their lives have changed. It's an insightful look at the significant costs of the war to the people of Ukraine. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/23/face-ukraine-lost-eye-one-lucky-ones/

Sure. If you're on the winning side. On the other hand you can be the Mongols who eradicate a substantial portion of the human race. There is archaeological evidence of Romans completely annihilating towns in the Iberian peninsula. Men, women, children. Then salting the earth so that no one could settle there afterwards. The Maoris would wipe populations off islands they discovered, returning with the women and girls as breeders. The Vikings faced few real repercussions for their rapacious and vicious attacks on Europe. Several descendants, including the Normans and the Kievan Rus, would go on to successfully make their own conquests. Indigenous tribes were wiped off the face of the map in several places in North America, including Haiti/Dominican Republic, the island Columbus discovered. The civilizations who prosecuted the Atlantic slave trade haven't exactly been punished for what I would consider a crime against humanity. Human history is replete with civilizations completely wiped out by another. Purposefully. I'm certain in prehistory it was common as well, but with smaller populations involved. It's all well and good to have a righteous cause. To me what's even more important is to possess the stronger military force with a society willing and able to wield it. Otherwise you might find your civilization no longer exists, no matter how just it is. In any case, no one is marching across the Russian border, so something else will have to happen. Whether it does or not. The Comanches did not possess nuclear weapons, otherwise that fight might have gone a bit differently.

You made this as a quote to me. Are you trying to convince me? Do you believe I disagree with any of this? Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't have an isolationist mindset, there is a significant portion of our population - in my opinion, a substantial majority - who do think this way. Becoming isolationist would mean the end of our standard of living. Full stop. But no hegemony lasts forever. At some point the United States will not be top dog any more. Whether that happens through external pressures or internal pressures is immaterial. Mostly likely it would be a combination of the two. The timing is uncertain as well. You talk about it like the US has to be globally engaged at a certain level. No, not really. The US can pull back from its international responsibilities through misguided policies based on a populist political platform and suffer the consequences. I'd argue we got a taste of it under Trump. I'm not making a prediction. I'm giving a warning. It's the same warning the elites in this country have been quite aware of since post WWII, and whether we agree with how it's been manifested, overall the US has not shied away from those responsibilities since. But we're in a new age politically. It's no longer Congress having one party rule for 60 years. There's no longer a segment of one party that votes with the other on a consistent basis. There's no longer a sense of collaboration, consensus building, or compromise. Through gerrymandering we've managed to make the centrist more and more a rare species, because for so many seats the toughest fight is in the primary. The base has become the end all be all, with the general voters secondary. Through the advent of social media we've created incredibly effective echo chambers that elevate our nuttiest aspects to normalcy, and make us believe our most incorrect assumptions are supported universally by anyone with working brain cells. This isn't staying on topic, but eventually the US has to answer its systemic issues with massive current account deficits. People talk about the national debt, but the national debt wouldn't be an issue if we simply sold as much stuff to other people as we purchased. Since we don't - and in 2022 it was to the tune of an annualized rate of a $1 trillion deficit - that money has to be made up from somewhere. That's a combination of factors - the dollar held as a reserve, debt issued by US entities, both public and private, and the purchase of assets, whether land, infrastructure, companies, or a combination thereof. A $1 trillion annual current account deficit is not sustainable. It's like anything traded on the open market. It holds a certain value until the day it doesn't. At some point people who hold dollars are going to have a hard time finding value in US debt and assets at a rate of return they find acceptable, at which point the value of that debt and assets drops precipitously. There are any number of factors which can lead to that reckoning. It's not like the US won't be able to sell its debt, but the interest rate at which it's priced will become more and more untenable. We've seen market mechanisms in action already, whether it was the junk bond market in the 80s, the dot com crash in the early 2000s, the housing market collapse in 2008. The 2008 collapse in particular was impacted by foreign held dollars seeking a safe return for their money that beat the US Treasury bill. The same thing is occurring right now to some degree, with huge amounts of foreign held dollars going into real estate investment trusts and other financing mechanisms. Got any calls/texts asking if you want to sell your house lately? Our engagement in the world, our ability to project military might, our perceived position as the safest haven for assets anywhere in the world, is what keeps this pseudo Ponzi scheme going. The day we decide we don't want to engage any more, is the day our economy collapses along a multitude of vectors. ' But if a compelling leader is able to communicate to the American public in an effective way that we need to focus more at home, and let others take up the mantle of defending themselves rather than relying on the US to do it for them, whether that's the wisest move or not may not make a difference.

Well, I try to be as evenhanded as I can in The Daily Texan thread, because the thread should be about the invasion of Ukraine. It just so happens that how countries choose to support Ukraine, and especially the United States, has a huge bearing on the war, both in the past and into the future. I'm not sure what kind of discussion you're looking for here, but I'm willing to engage in whatever way you'd like to. I cannot be a defender of Trump. I consider Trump to be a complete disaster on any number of levels. I don't know if you're trying to suggest there's no such thing as an isolationist wing of the Republican Party, or there's no such thing in the Democratic Party. Since I firmly believe there's people in both parties who would prefer the US concentrate on responsibilities at home and quit spending so much resources in foreign countries, and that it's a reflection of the American people in general, I'd be glad to disagree with you on whatever you like if you feel like those are false statements.

Does anyone else get chills watching this video? Something about the music and editing. Just to warn you, it cuts off too quickly, so be prepared for that.

Yes. I would agree that's a key point he would most definitely like us to "nothing to see here, folks." I would also like to say that I've been summarily rejected by countless women - for good reason - and not once did I then think I should probably go ahead and shoot her.